(first) Mount Adoption License — Do something about it!

[AllNightPlayer.1286]

It is still not possible to acquire certain skins from the [first **Mount Adoption**](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mount_Adoption_License "") set, since those do not include a _select licence_ version.

I do not understand, why this sort of licence should not be introduced to the shop for _1,200 gems_.

 

The community was very unhappy about this random skin selection—for good reasons. So, you changed your strategy and additionally introduced the _select licences_. But why not retrospectively for the first set? Your argument, that some player already bought it, does not seem valid. How shall _(new)_ players understand this difference, if they want to acquire those skins—still locked behind a **RNG**? And I do not see how an introduction of a _select licence_ for the first set should harm players, who bouth the _random licences_, since those also exists for newer sets.

 

It also would not be the first time, you changed something in the shop afterwards.

No one blamed you for changing **Silver-Fed Salvage-o-Matic** from _1 silver_ per use to _60 copper_ per use _(months after its first release)_—with its price remaining at _500 gems_.

 

I for example would be more than willing to spend _2,400 gems_ now for the **Star** skins on both *gryphon* and *jackal*. But I will not spend any gems/money for those maybe, maybe not licences.

[Ayrilana.1396]

They’ve stated their reason why they will not offer select licenses for that:

 

[We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license/)

[AllNightPlayer.1286]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> They’ve stated their reason why they will not offer select licenses for that:

>

> [We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license/)

ANet has made many statements over the years, saying “this will never happen”, but it did happen at the end. There **will be** _select licences_. And the sooner the better. Or maybe they wait for another two years, until no one remembers this first … faux pas? :disappointed:

And as far as I read this linked thread, the community was/is not happy about it.

[Ashen.2907]

Honestly curious here, what has ANet said will never happen, but then did?

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"AllNightPlayer.1286" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > They’ve stated their reason why they will not offer select licenses for that:

> >

> > [We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license/)

> ANet has made many statements over the years, saying “this will never happen”, but it did happen at the end. There **will be** _select licences_. And the sooner the better. Or maybe they wait for another two years, until no one remembers this first … faux pas? :disappointed:

> And as far as I read this linked thread, the community was/is not happy about it.

 

When have they ever stated something will **never** happen and then later it happened? Please note there’s a difference between **never** and **”no plans”**.

 

If you do provide an example, please include a direct link to **exactly** what Anet said as the phrasing makes all the difference.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"AllNightPlayer.1286" said:

> ANet has made many statements over the years, saying “this will never happen”, but it did happen at the end.

I recommend not hanging your hat on such an argument. ANet rarely makes any definitive statements about long term plans. When they do, it's rarely "it will never happen."

 

More importantly, when they have changed plans (regardless of how their public statements were phrased), it's always been because something substantial changed: new tools/tech, economic opportunities/disappointments. It's never been arbitrary.

 

So what has changed since ANet said that they "won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made"? There hasn't been a sudden sea change in community opinion on the topic, ANet isn't getting sudden bursts of revenue, they don't have new tech that would lower the cost of adding new MountFits more quickly.

 

In short, the environment in which they made the decision is hardly different from today's; there's no reason for them to revisit the decision.

 

[Randulf.7614]

I fully support them changing their mind on this one

[Shep.4026]

I fully support them not changing their mind on this one. I've only ever bought one of those adoption licenses. Was hoping for one specific and as expected, got another. Still a nice mountfit, but not the one I wanted. Didn't try again. However, I could imagine trying again some day when money is more abundantly available or I stumble on a method of making gold thats's actually fun enough to do it regularly.

 

See, the thing is that because there is no select license, those really really really sweet skins are also really really really rare, because most peeps are too stingy to buy enough licenses to get the one(s) (basically the point of this thread). And I like rare things. I like having rare things. Makes me feel all special ;o)

 

But that's not even the bottom line, because that has already been made several times. I imaging myself haivng already bought more of these adoption licenses, because I want just one particular skin. And because I was both stingy and very unlucky, but still desperately wanted that skin, I bought the licenses individually and it took me a total of nine adoption licenses. That's a cost of 3600 gems for ONE skin, as I don't care about the other skins. I wanted that one and no other. So, my mount select license cost me 3600 gems, not 1200.

 

If A-Net were to introduce a mount select license for these skins, it would potentially invalidate every previous investment in adoptions licenses greater than the price of the newly introduced select license, because there would be no way of knowing who just loved the randomness and liked/wanted all skins and who bought several of them as the only means to unlock one specific skin. The latter and anyone who claims to be would have grounds to ask for a refund.

[Kameko.8314]

The one I remember was the no gen 2 legendaries… then again I don’t remember exact wording.

 

 

[casualkenny.9817]

I didn't buy the original set, and I absolutely will never buy it in its current form, and there are skins in there that I want, but

 

It would be unfair (any time soon) to those who already got it, because they had to factor this RNG into their purchase decision, perhaps even buying the whole pack. They might never have done that if select licenses were already available. Think doing this would be like spitting at those who supported Anet first. If I had bought that set I would be unhappy too.

 

(Ur silver-fed example is completely not a parallel btw)

 

 

Of cos, if those who purchased the original set don't mind, by all means

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Kameko.8314" said:

> The one I remember was the no gen 2 legendaries… then again I don’t remember exact wording.

You'll have to find a quote. I don't remember them ever saying that they wouldn't add more legendary weapons to the game.

[Kameko.8314]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Kameko.8314" said:

> > The one I remember was the no gen 2 legendaries… then again I don’t remember exact wording.

> You'll have to find a quote. I don't remember them ever saying that they wouldn't add more legendary weapons to the game.

 

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Kameko.8314" said:

> > The one I remember was the no gen 2 legendaries… then again I don’t remember exact wording.

> You'll have to find a quote. I don't remember them ever saying that they wouldn't add more legendary weapons to the game.

 

Yeah I tried to look but found outside sources. Just remember lot of shock on their announcement for adding more

[Sirius.4510]

I guess there is a small business tradeoff with the current direction - there are a couple extra skins I would be interested in getting from the first set, but not enough to play the RNG game on it. If there were a select option I'd probably buy those handful of skins; but as for the rest of them, later sets are better anyway.

 

However, going back on your word is a big deal, so I don't really expect set 1 to change.

[Danikat.8537]

I'd really like to be able to buy select licences for the original 30-pack because there are skins in there I'd like but I don't buy RNG items from the gem store and there's no way I'm going to buy all of them (the only way it wouldn't be RNG). Especially now that the number of skins I want has actually gone down over time. The biggest appeal of this set for me was that it was the first time 'normal' mount skins, which look like the base mounts but are fully dyable, were available. Now I've got normal versions of all the mounts from other packs so it's only the few special ones I like that I'd want to buy.

 

I can understand how it would seem unfair to people who bought more than 3 RNG licences trying for the skin they like. But you could also say it's unfair to put things on sale when other people paid full price for them, and Anet do that all the time.

 

However I'm not expecting them to introduce select licences for them any time soon, after saying they wouldn't do that. I think it would need either a long time or some fundamental change (such as loot boxes becoming illegal in one or more of their major markets) to change that.

[DanAlcedo.3281]

Am i the only one waiting for the first mount licences to come back?

 

I need like 4 skins for fashion wars.

 

I have money anet! Let me use it!

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:

> Am i the only one waiting for the first mount licences to come back?

>

> I need like 4 skins for fashion wars.

>

> I have money anet! Let me use it!

 

No. I’m waiting for them as I’ve decided to buy up all of the mount skins.

 

> @"Kameko.8314" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"Kameko.8314" said:

> > > The one I remember was the no gen 2 legendaries… then again I don’t remember exact wording.

> > You'll have to find a quote. I don't remember them ever saying that they wouldn't add more legendary weapons to the game.

>

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"Kameko.8314" said:

> > > The one I remember was the no gen 2 legendaries… then again I don’t remember exact wording.

> > You'll have to find a quote. I don't remember them ever saying that they wouldn't add more legendary weapons to the game.

>

> Yeah I tried to look but found outside sources. Just remember lot of shock on their announcement for adding more

 

You unfortunately won’t find an official source as it was made in the old forums which are now gone. There’s the archive site, which a player made, or you can see if it made it to one of their social media accounts. It would have been in March 2016 before their big April update overhaul.

 

From what I remember, they stated that the production of legendary weapons would stop indefinitely after that tiger ShortBow one. ‘Indefinitely’ being the keyword there which can mean forever or an unspecified period of time. Its meaning was argued over on the forums.

 

Anet’s stance on this mount license appears to be pretty solid.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"AllNightPlayer.1286" said:

> It is still not possible to acquire certain skins from the [first **Mount Adoption**](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mount_Adoption_License "") set, since those do not include a _select licence_ version.

> I do not understand, why this sort of licence should not be introduced to the shop for _1,200 gems_.

>

> The community was very unhappy about this random skin selection—for good reasons. So, you changed your strategy and additionally introduced the _select licences_. But why not retrospectively for the first set? Your argument, that some player already bought it, does not seem valid. How shall _(new)_ players understand this difference, if they want to acquire those skins—still locked behind a **RNG**? And I do not see how an introduction of a _select licence_ for the first set should harm players, who bouth the _random licences_, since those also exists for newer sets.

>

> It also would not be the first time, you changed something in the shop afterwards.

> No one blamed you for changing **Silver-Fed Salvage-o-Matic** from _1 silver_ per use to _60 copper_ per use _(months after its first release)_—with its price remaining at _500 gems_.

>

> I for example would be more than willing to spend _2,400 gems_ now for the **Star** skins on both *gryphon* and *jackal*. But I will not spend any gems/money for those maybe, maybe not licences.

 

If I recall, as you unlock skins in that particular license the chance of getting the same skin again is ZERO, you will always get a new skin every time you do the RNG version...so keep buying and eventually you'll get what you want, but I'm also going to presume you don't want to do that because you don't want some of the other skins either.

[kratan.4619]

This part of the community has no issue with the first license, try not to speak for everybody.

[Boogiepop Void.6473]

How about just putting the licenses in the shop? The original and Istani license have been out of the store FOREVER.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Boogiepop Void.6473" said:

> How about just putting the licenses in the shop? The original and Istani license have been out of the store FOREVER.

Your definition of "forever" must be about 2 months.

 

Recent availability:

* Original: [31 August 2018 (one week)](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/665721/#Comment_665721), [25 December 2018 (one week)](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/781402/#Comment_781402), [22 March 2019 (discounted, one day)](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/867806/#Comment_867806)

* Istani: [27 September 2018 (discounted, one week)](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/697698/#Comment_697698), [21 December (regular price, one week)](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/777869/#Comment_777869), [16 April 2019 (discounted, one week)](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/889020/#Comment_889020)

* Istani, as part of the War Eternal Requisition Pack (roughly starting 23 April, at anywhere from 2400 gems to 3000, which included the option of one Istani select license)

 

 

[Zuldari.3940]

I just wish they would put them in the gem shop already, along with some others that i havent seen. I sick of desert racer/distant lands.

[Boogiepop Void.6473]

> @"Zuldari.3940" said:

> I just wish they would put them in the gem shop already, along with some others that i havent seen. I sick of desert racer/distant lands.

 

Actually ist's just Distant Lands and Exotic right now.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

Developers can change in game currency / rewards at will, and while there will always be pushback, it's part of an ever evolving game. Think of all the people who were recently grinding mats in S4 maps until Tuesday, to then discover that ANET was adding Hero's Chests to many of the PoF metas. Imagine how many chests those players missed out on? But no biggie, it happens, the game changes...

 

But when you start to screw with something that people paid real life $$$ for, that's a line you don't want to cross.

 

Whatever your thoughts on this issue are, the facts are people paid real $$$ to gamble on these skins, and they did so because that was what was in place at the time. Had the select licenses existed, many would have purchased those instead to get the skin they wanted. Consequently, many paid $$$ they didn't want to spend to get the mount skins they wanted. If ANET changed it now so people could just buy the skin they want for 1200gems, that would enrage those people, and rightly so.

 

Another fine example of ANET making decisions without first getting some feedback from the players. I wasn't here for that, but my understanding is the RNG aspect of this was (EDITED)_ near-universally panned_ (EDITED) by the players. The 1200gem select license was seen as a compromise by ANET, as to I think, making the pack smaller, dropping from 30 skins to 15 at a time, thereby increasing the odds.

 

It's too late to fix now though.

[yann.1946]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> Developers can change in game currency / rewards at will, and while there will always be pushback, it's part of an ever evolving game. Think of all the people who were recently grinding mats in S4 maps until Tuesday, to then discover that ANET was adding Hero's Chests to many of the PoF metas. Imagine how many chests those players missed out on? But no biggie, it happens, the game changes...

>

> But when you start to screw with something that people paid real life $$$ for, that's a line you don't want to cross.

>

> Whatever your thoughts on this issue are, the facts are people paid real $$$ to gamble on these skins, and they did so because that was what was in place at the time. Had the select licenses existed, many would have purchased those instead to get the skin they wanted. Consequently, many paid $$$ they didn't want to spend to get the mount skins they wanted. If ANET changed it now so people could just buy the skin they want for 1200gems, that would enrage those people, and rightly so.

>

> Another fine example of ANET making decisions without first getting some feedback from the players. I wasn't here for that, but my understanding is the RNG aspect of this was universally panned by the players. The 1200gem select license was seen as a compromise by ANET, as to I think, making the pack smaller, dropping from 30 skins to 15 at a time, thereby increasing the odds.

>

> It's too late to fix now though.

 

What does panned mean? And it probably wasn't universally so by the community. Nothing ever is

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > Developers can change in game currency / rewards at will, and while there will always be pushback, it's part of an ever evolving game. Think of all the people who were recently grinding mats in S4 maps until Tuesday, to then discover that ANET was adding Hero's Chests to many of the PoF metas. Imagine how many chests those players missed out on? But no biggie, it happens, the game changes...

> >

> > But when you start to screw with something that people paid real life $$$ for, that's a line you don't want to cross.

> >

> > Whatever your thoughts on this issue are, the facts are people paid real $$$ to gamble on these skins, and they did so because that was what was in place at the time. Had the select licenses existed, many would have purchased those instead to get the skin they wanted. Consequently, many paid $$$ they didn't want to spend to get the mount skins they wanted. If ANET changed it now so people could just buy the skin they want for 1200gems, that would enrage those people, and rightly so.

> >

> > Another fine example of ANET making decisions without first getting some feedback from the players. I wasn't here for that, but my understanding is the RNG aspect of this was universally panned by the players. The 1200gem select license was seen as a compromise by ANET, as to I think, making the pack smaller, dropping from 30 skins to 15 at a time, thereby increasing the odds.

> >

> > It's too late to fix now though.

>

> What does panned mean? And it probably wasn't universally so by the community. Nothing ever is

 

 

_verb (used with object), panned, pan·ning.

Informal. to criticize severely

_

And while I agree with your premise, I've never seen anyone praise the system they had, but that doesn't mean anything, as I wasn't there are the time, nor have I read every single thread posted about it since.

 

Would you prefer I amend my post to say "near-universally panned" ?